National Review‘s Bad Idea for Ukraine

National Review‘s editors suggest an implausible response to Ukraine’s protests:

“Europe” should therefore make every effort — and offer every financial, economic, and political guarantee — to persuade Yanukovych and his supporting cast of oligarchs to break with Putin’s Russia and sign onto an association agreement with the European Union that will more than compensate them for Putin’s threatened trade war [bold mine-DL].

As Julia Gray mentioned in the post I linked to earlier, trade with Russia accounts for approximately one-fifth of the country’s GDP. The EU has so far shown no interest in providing remotely enough compensation to begin to offset the effects of lost trade with Russia, and it is doubtful that most Ukrainians would favor the “decisive separation” from Russia that the editors see as the ultimate goal of all this. Indeed, the more that trade with the EU has been cast in terms of being a “civilizational choice,” the less attractive it has appeared to Ukrainians that might otherwise see the benefits of it. It is impractical at best to seek a “decisive separation” between two countries that have been bound together both culturally and economically over such a long period of time. Like the misguided idea of bringing Ukraine into NATO, it substitutes the preferences of hawks in the West for what most Ukrainians want.

The other major flaw with this proposal is the assumption that Ukraine represents a “major” strategic prize. Mark Adomanis reviews the numbers and reaches the opposite conclusion:

Ukraine is not a “prize,” it’s a rapidly aging society that is one of the most demographically unstable in the planet.

As he said in an earlier post, “winning” Ukraine would mean taking on a new burden:

An objective look at the numbers tells you that Ukraine is not an asset but a major liability, a country that is likely to need massive infusions of resources just to stay on its feet.

Considering the EU’s recent problems, it makes little sense for them to make the larger commitment that NR’s editors want. It isn’t just a “long shot,” as they say. It is a seriously flawed policy that is likely to increase regional tensions to no one’s benefit.

14 Responses to National Review‘s Bad Idea for Ukraine

Although I agree with you that there is not much we can do with the Ukraine, I wonder if this is the future for poorer countries in which they become a hostile takeover by a larger nations. (In modern global economics, the dollar is mightier than the sword. Or is that Gold mightier than the sword.)

David T’s Seinfeld link was amusing … but perhaps it’s the most apt analogue for whatever the National Review is selling.

Clearly, as pointed out, the NR seems to have no real awareness of the domestic issues and demographic realities that constrain the Ukraine’s actions. Rather, they see a block on the map in some big geopolitical game, and if we’re trying to beat Putin in said game we have to pry the Ukraine away and put some different blocks within its borders, right?

1. Ukraine is a proverbial torn nation. In fact, it is 2.5 nations wrapped in one. Ukraine never had real statehood and no government will be able to successfully operate there;
2. Russia’s policy towards Ukraine is as incompetent as Putin himself–it is on his watch that number of important cultural programs went nowhere and the only card he has (he thinks he has) is gas;
3. Many people in Ukraine do suspect (some know) that EU will mean one thing–turning Ukraine into the agricultural appendix of EU. Economically Ukraine is almost insignificant.

Ukraine needs to achieve many internal reforms, in order to be eligible for membership in the EU. The ruling group would lose their insiders’ advantage, to some degree. Obviously. And, EU cannot replace all that Russia offers.

Remember how the National review was all for the Egyptian government slaughtering protesters after the coup there? I wonder whats with the change? could it be that this time their ideology of neoliberalism is getting spread?

I don’t think we should do anything for the Ukraine outside of opening markets, etc. Frankly, the Ukra

My question is for conservatives is how do get more people to have children. In the developed world a great contradiction has occurred, in which the richer the country, the less the country can afford to have children. I would like to know any developed nation (outside of Israel which is small and admist a ‘Cold War’) that has a substantially high birth rate?

@ John of Dorset: You have to recall that in National Review’s word there’s a hierarchy of evils that goes something like this (from most evil to least evil):

Iran/North Korea –> Muslim-majority nations without diplomatic relations with Israel –> Russia/China –> Developing countries whose leaders use the word “socialism” non-pejoratively –> European Union member states who didn’t invade Iraq –> Countries who have a boundary dispute with any of the previously listed countries –> European Union member states who did invade Iraq –> United States –> Israel

As long as a country is punching “up” the hierarchy of evils, then National Review is all for it.